Detecting Stylistic Inconsistencies in Collaborative Writing



When two or more writers collaborate on a document by each contributing pieces of text, the problem can arise that, while each might be an exemplary piece of writing, they do not cohere into a document that speaks with a single voice. That is, they are stylistically inconsistent. But given a stylistically inconsistent document, people often find it hard to articulate exactly where the problems lie. Rather, they feel that something is wrong, but cannot quite say why.


Prepositional Phrase Stylistic Feature Writing Style Collaborative Writing Intransitive Verb 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brainerd, Barron (1974). Weighing evidence in language and literature: A statistical approach. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Brill, Eric (1992). ‘A simple rule-based part of speech tagger: Proceedings of the Third Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Trento,152–5.Google Scholar
  3. Cluett, Robert (1976). Prose style and critical reading. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Crystal, David and Davy, Derek (1969). Investigating English style. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
  5. DiMarco, Chrysanne and Hirst, Graeme (1993). ‘A computational theory of goal-directed style in syntax: Computational Linguistics,19(3), 451–99.Google Scholar
  6. DiMarco, Chrysanne and Mah, Keith (1994). ‘A model of comparative stylistics for machine translation.’ Machine Translation, 9 (1), 21–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixon, P. and Mannion, D. (1993). ‘Goldsmith’s periodical essays: A statistical analysis of eleven doubtful cases.’ Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8 (1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ede, Lisa S. and Lunsford, Andrea A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Enkvist, Nils Erik (1964). ‘On defining style: An essay in applied linguistics’, in John Walter Spencer (ed.), Linguistics and style, 1–56. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Farkas, D. K. (1985). ‘The concept of consistency in writing and editing.’ Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 15 (4), 353–364.Google Scholar
  11. Flower, Linda S. and Hayes, John R. (1980). ‘The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints’, in Lee W. Gregg and Erwin R. Steinberg (eds), Cognitive processes in writing, 31–50. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Glover, Angela (1996). Automatically detecting stylistic inconsistencies in computer-supported collaborative writing. Master’s thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, February 1996, published as Technical Report CSRI-340, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto. ftp://ftp. csri. toronto. edu/csri-technical-reports/340Google Scholar
  13. Green, Stephen J. and DiMarco, Chrysanne (1993). ‘Stylistic decision making in natural language generation.’ Proceedings, Fourth European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Pisa, 1993, 155–8.Google Scholar
  14. Hovy, Eduard Hendrik (1988). Generating natural language under pragmatic constraints. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Hoyt, Pat and DiMarco, Chrysanne (1994). ‘A goal-directed multi-level stylistic analyzer.’ Proceedings, 10th Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Banff, May 1994, 23–30.Google Scholar
  16. Irizarry, Estelle (1991). ‘One writer, two authors: Resolving the polemic of Latin America’s first published novel: Literary and Linguistic Computing,6(3), 175–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kenny, Anthony (1982). The computation of style: An introduction to statistics for students of literature and humanities. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Marcus, Mitchell P., Santorini, Beatrice and Marcinkiewicz, Mary Ann (1993). ‘Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank.’ Computational Linguistics, 19 (2), 313–30.Google Scholar
  19. McColly, William B. (1987). ‘Style and structure in the Middle English poem Cleanness.’ Computers and the Humanities, 21, 169–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Milic, Louis Tonko (1967). A quantitative approach to the style of Jonathan Swift. Studies in English literature 23. The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
  21. Milic, Louis Tonko (1991). ‘Progress in stylistics: Theory, statistics, computers.’ Computers and the Humanities 25, 393–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morton, Andrew Queen (1978). Literary detection: How to prove authorship and fraud in literature and documents. Bath: Bowker.Google Scholar
  23. Mosteller, Frederick and Wallace, David L. (1964). Inference and disputed authorship: The Federalist. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Payette, Julie and Hirst, Graeme (1992). ‘An intelligent computer-assistant for stylistic instruction: Computers and the Humanities,26(2), 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sanford, Anthony J. and Moxey, Linda M. (1989). ‘Language understanding and the cognitive ergonomics of style’, in Patrik Holt and Noel Williams (eds), Computers and writing: Models and tools, 38–49. Oxford: Intellect.Google Scholar
  26. Weischedel, Ralph, Meteer, Marie, Schwartz, Richard, Ramshaw, Lance and Palmucci, Jeff (1993). ‘Coping with ambiguity and unknown words through probabilistic models.’ Computational Linguistics, 19 (2), 359–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1996

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations